COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. Review of greening after one year

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, SWD(2016) 218 final PART 3/6 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Review of greening after one year EN EN

2 Annex 2 Initial results of the implementation of green direct payments by farmers Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS... 3 LIST OF FIGURES... 4 LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSING IMPLEMENTATION DATA Greening implementation data Permanent grassland reference and annual ratio Data availability and reliability Context data Methodology for maps IMPLEMENTATION OF GREENING IN Farms under at least one greening obligation and main exemptions Crop diversification Permanent grassland Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland Permanent grassland ratio Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) Equivalence CONCLUSIONS

3 LIST OF ACRONYMS AECM CD CSWD DP EFA ESPG FSS IACS MS NFC NUTS PG RDP SFS WF Agri-environment climate measure (under RDP) Crop diversification Commission Staff Working Document Direct payments Ecological Focus Area(s) Environmentally Sensitive Permanent Grassland Farm Structure Survey Integrated Administration and Control System Member State Nitrogen-fixing crops (EFA) Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques (Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) Permanent grassland(s) Rural Development Programme Small farmers scheme Weighting factors (EFA) 3

4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Total agricultural area under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of total agricultural area, according to Eurostat FSS data for Figure 2: Number of farmers under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of the number of farmers applying for direct payments Figure 3: Maps showing the number of farmers under at least one greening obligation and their area of land as a proportion of Eurostat FSS data for Figure 4: Area of arable land and permanent grassland under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of total agricultural land, according to Eurostat FSS data for Figure 5: Total agricultural area under the small farmers scheme as a proportion of the total agricultural area according to Eurostat FSS data for Figure 6: The number of organic farms as a proportion of the number of farms benefiting from direct payments, total agricultural area and permanent grassland, as a proportion of the Eurostat FSS data for Figure 7: Area of arable land subject to the crop diversification obligation as a proportion of the total arable area according to Eurostat FSS data for 2013, by Member State Figure 8: Arable land subject to the two-crop and three-crop requirements as a proportion of arable land under the crop diversification obligation Figure 9: Arable land on farms exempted from the crop diversification obligation, by type of exemption Figure 10: Map of arable land under crop diversification as a proportion of total arable land in the region (Eurostat FSS data for 2013) Figure 11: Declared ESPG (in and outside Natura 2000) as a proportion of permanent grassland according to the permanent grassland ratio Figure 12: The proportion of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 designated and/or declared as ESPG, by Member State Figure 13: Areas of permanent grassland as a proportion of total agricultural area, by Member State (based on the data from the notification of the permanent grassland ratio) Figure 14: Proportion of permanent grassland in 2015 and 2014 (permanent grassland/total agricultural land).. 33 Figure 15: Change shown by the 2014 annual ratio for permanent grassland relative to the reference ratio for the period Figure 16: Total area of arable land that belongs to farms subject to EFA obligations as a proportion of the total arable area according to Eurostat FSS data for 2013, by Member State Figure 17: Area of arable land on farms exempted from the EFA obligation, by type of exemption Figure 18: Percentage of arable land under EFA before and after applying weighting factors Figure 19: Areas under EFA (after applying weighting factors) as a proportion of the arable land belonging to farms subject to the EFA obligation Figure 20: Breakdown of EFA areas by main EFA type, at EU level, before and after the application of weighting factors Figure 21: Breakdown of the main types of EFA area, after applying the weighting factors Figure 22: Breakdown of EFA landscape features areas, after applying the weighting factors

5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Farms benefiting from direct payments as a proportion of the total number of farms and total agricultural area, according to Eurostat FSS data for Table 2: Number of farmers and hectares of farms under at least one greening obligation Table 3: Farmers under the small farmers scheme as a proportion of the number of farmers benefiting from direct payments in 2014, and of the total agricultural area according to the Eurostat FSS data for Table 4: Areas designated as ESPG outside Natura Table 5: Reference ratio, annual ratio for 2015 and the percentage change between the two, at Member State and regional level (permanent grassland ratio notification data) Table 6: Member States implementing collective EFA Table 7: Summary of equivalent practices adopted by Member States in Table 8: The number of farmers, area of arable land and EFA area where equivalent practices were used in 2015, in absolute terms and as a percentage of all farms under at least one greening obligation Table 9: Summary of the main indicators used to assess greening implementation in

6 1. INTRODUCTION This Annex analyses data on the implementation of the green direct payment scheme (also referred to as greening ) taken from notifications sent by Member States for the year These data should be interpreted in the context of Member States decisions on the implementation of greening. The structure of the notifications required by the Regulations on direct payments is therefore set out in Annex 1 to the CSWD. The data analysed in the following chapters is taken mainly from the notifications on implementation data submitted under Article 65(1)(c) (output monitoring indicators), Article 65(1)(d) (permanent grassland ratio) and Article 65(1)(a)(ii) and Article 65(1)(b) (designation of ESPG) of Regulation (EU) No 639/ Some data and other information also come from other notifications, such as policy decisions taken by Member States. 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSING IMPLEMENTATION DATA 2.1. Greening implementation data Implementation data are subject to the notification required under Article 65(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. This article specifies that an annual notification must be sent by 15 December of each year. The implementation data should be interpreted bearing in mind that greening is an obligatory scheme for all farms applying for direct payments during the period Farms that have to respect greening obligations are therefore part of the farms under the direct payments scheme, the only difference between the two groups being due to farms that are exempted from greening. Farms under greening and those exempted are both included in this Annex, as the notifications provided by the Member States contain information on indicators that apply to both groups. The notification gives information on two basic indicators: the number of farmers and the number of hectares. These figures are provided for each of the different aggregates linked to the greening obligations and exemptions. One of the core indicators used to get a broad picture of greening at EU and Member State level is the number of farmers subject to at least one greening obligation (Article 65(1)(c)(i)). As greening obligations involve both arable land and permanent grassland, there might be cases where only one of these land uses is present in a farm, or where the farmer is exempted on arable land (e.g. if they have less than 10 ha) but not on grassland. The other indicators are related to the various exemptions, the use of allowed equivalent practices and the specific individual greening obligations. The source of the data is the database for direct payment applications, which is stored in the Integrated Administrative Control System (IACS) of each Member State for the year in question. The IACS system stores the data for all direct payments and rural development applications. Related data are declared by the farmer and checked by the Paying Agency. The Member States provide an extract from the applications database set out in excel according to 1 OJ L 181, , p. 1. 6

7 the structure specified in the Delegated Regulation. The source of the data on greening used in the analysis below is always the notifications provided by the Member States for the year For figures on permanent pastures ratio related to the previous period ( ), the data are related to year 2014). Where other sources are used, these are named in the relevant analysis. When analysing what information should be included in the notification for these indicators, a number of points were discussed with the Member States, leading to the following decisions: Geographical breakdown: the indicators are to be provided at NUTS level 3 in all Member States. Number of farmers: this is intended to mean the number of beneficiaries of direct payments, including both exempted farms and those subject to greening obligations. In practical terms, the number of beneficiaries of direct payments (and greening) can be considered as equivalent to the number of holdings (farms) available in Eurostat data. Number of hectares: depending on the indicator in question, the number of hectares is calculated as the most relevant of: total agricultural area (farms with at least one greening obligation, those under the small farmers scheme and organic farms), arable land (for crop diversification and the EFA), permanent grassland (for the ESPG and permanent grassland ratio) and the EFA area. Declared areas: Member States should use the areas they declared in their applications, or the areas established following administrative and on-the-spot checks, where these figures are available at the time of extracting the data from the database Permanent grassland reference and annual ratio Article 45(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/ requires Member States to ensure that the permanent grassland ratio is maintained. Article 65(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 sets the deadline for and the data to be provided in the notification, as required by the Commission for monitoring the trend of the ratio. The Member States establish a reference ratio based on the ratio of permanent grassland to total agricultural area in the reference year Data from 2012 are to be taken into account to ensure continuity with the previous period. The annual ratio for each year is then compared with the reference ratio: if the difference between the reference and the annual ratio is greater than 5 %, the Member State is required to avoid further conversion of grassland and to issue reconversion obligations to farmers who have converted permanent grassland into land for other uses. The provisions on the ratio of permanent grassland are in line with the rules that applied under the cross-compliance system that was in force during the period , notwithstanding that the definition of permanent grassland was slightly different under the latter system and the level above which reconversion was required was 10 %. 2 OJ L 347, , p

8 2014 is the last year covered by the old system, under which the reference ratio was based on data from the years 2005 and 2003 for most Member States is the first year covered by the new system. Member States were required to set the reference ratio for the whole period on the basis of 2015 and 2012 figures and to notify the Commission of the first annual ratio Data availability and reliability Member States provided both the notifications required (giving data on output indicators and the permanent grassland ratio, respectively), with the following exceptions. This report therefore also does not include data where no notification was provided. France provided neither notification; Italy did not provide a notification on the permanent grassland ratio; for Scotland, the UK provided provisional data on indicators, which will need to be updated when further information is available, and did not provide a notification on the permanent grassland ratio. Some Member States sent incomplete notifications and some data on specific indicators still need to be checked. The figures sent by Member States were verified and comments were sent to the countries where the data were not consistent, either internally within the datasets provided or with information available from other notifications. The data used in this Annex are based on the latest figures sent by Member States before 13 June Any other caveats are indicated under each section of analysis Context data In order to calculate the relative proportion of farms subject to greening requirements, information is needed on the contexts in which greening is applied. The main types of context data that are useful when calculating greening indicators are: Agricultural statistics: the greening data are analysed taking the total number of farms and areas in the EU, the Member State or the region as the total population. The dataset used in this Annex is the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey (FSS) data for the year This is the most recent dataset available, and is based on a survey, while the 2010 FSS data were taken from the agricultural census. Direct payments data: in principle, greening is applied in all farms applying for direct payments, as it is an obligatory scheme under Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. The total number of farms applying for direct payments is therefore the most accurate measure of the population these data are drawn from. Farms that are exempted from greening obligations, such as farms operating under the small farmer scheme and organic farms, are also beneficiaries of direct payments. Data on farms applying for direct payments would normally be the natural choice as a representation of the population within which greening is being implemented and analysed. 8

9 The data for 2015 were not yet available, however, at the time of drafting this Annex, as they will not be provided by Member States until July Some analysis was carried out using data on direct payments for 2014, but as the direct payments system has changed from claim year 2015 also the number of beneficiaries will be different in the new period, in particular for some Member States. It is therefore not possible to use these data throughout. In view of this, Eurostat FSS data for 2013 are used to represent the population in most of the analysis. It should be noted that the data on the implementation of greening and the statistics are from different sources, the former being based on farmers declarations and being taken from IACS systems, and the latter being collected by Member States statistical services and further analysed by Eurostat. This can generate inconsistencies when comparing the figures at national and regional level. Table 1 shows the number of farms receiving direct payments in 2014, and their total agricultural area, as a proportion of, respectively, the number of farms and the total agricultural area in the EU as a whole, taken from statistical data (Eurostat FSS for 2013). As can be seen, 66 % of farms came under the direct payments scheme, accounting for 89 % of the total agricultural area. Table 1: Farms benefiting from direct payments as a proportion of the total number of farms and total agricultural area, according to Eurostat FSS data for Eurostat FSS for 2013 Direct payments beneficiaries in 2014 Direct payments beneficiaries / total farms Number of farms % Total agricultural area (ha) % 2.5. Methodology for maps The maps included in this Annex are based on different geographical breakdowns, depending on the data in question: Implementation data: NUTS level 3 in all Member States; Ratio of permanent grassland: for the period , the Member State decides which geographical level (national, regional or sub-regional) to use for checking the ratio. A similar system was used in the previous period. The levels chosen are as follows: o : regional level for Belgium, Germany, France and the UK, national level for other Member States; o : regional level for Belgium, Germany and the UK, national level for all other Member States. The indicators used in the maps are normally expressed in relative terms, based on a ratio, e.g. arable land under crop diversification/total arable land according to Eurostat data. Eurostat 3 Source: for Eurostat data, DG Agriculture Statistical factsheets ( For direct payment data: DG Agriculture analysis based on Member State notifications. 9

10 FSS data for 2013 are used as the data representing the population at NUTS level 3. Eurostat data are not available at NUTS level 3 for Germany, and the data used to represent the population has therefore been taken from the greening implementation data. 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF GREENING IN Farmers under at least one greening obligation and main exemptions The main indicator related to greening implementation is the number of farmers and hectares under at least one greening obligation. These figures show the extent of the application of the greening obligation within the structure of different Member States agricultural sector. Table 2 shows the data sent by Member States on the number of farmers and the total hectares of land for the different uses. The total number of farmers is almost 2.5 million, and they account for almost 106 million hectares of agricultural area. The largest areas of total agricultural area have been recorded in Spain, Germany and Poland. The highest number of farmers is in Poland, followed by Spain, Germany and Romania. The largest areas of permanent grassland are located in Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany and Ireland. 10

11 11 Table 2: Number of farmers and hectares of farmers under at least one greening obligation Member State No of farmers % Total agricultural area (ha) % Area of arable land (ha) % Area of permanent grassland (ha) % Area of permanent crops (ha) Belgium % % % % % Bulgaria % % % % % Czech Rep % % % % % Denmark % % % % % Germany % % % % % Estonia % % % % % Ireland % % % % % Greece % % % % % Spain % % % % % France N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Croatia % % % % % Italy % % % % % Cyprus % % % % % Latvia % % % % % Lithuania % % % % % Luxembourg % % % % % Hungary % % % % % Malta 25 0 % % % 0 0 % 15 0 % Netherlands % % % % % Austria % % % % % Poland % % % % % Portugal % % % % % Romania % % % % % Slovenia % % % % % %

12 12 Slovakia % % % % % Finland % % % % % Sweden % % % % % UK % % % % % Total EU % % % % % Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available.

13 Overall, 72 % of EU agricultural area is subject to greening calculated as the total agricultural area under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of the total agricultural area, as given by the Eurostat FSS data for 2013 (Figure 1). The proportion of agricultural area under at least one greening obligation is above the EU average in 17 Member States, with eleven recording a level of between 90 % and 100 % of the total agricultural area (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden). Malta and Portugal have less than 20 % of agricultural area subject to greening, while for other countries, such as Italy, Greece, Romania, the UK and Croatia, the proportion is between 30 % and 60 %. For these Member States, the lower proportion of land subject to greening can be explained by the number of exempted farmers: Malta has the most extreme situation, with only 25 farmers being under one greening obligation, while more than farmers are exempted, of which come under the small farmers scheme. In Italy, farmers, covering a total of 4.5 million ha, are subject to at least one greening obligation, while around farms are exempted through the small farmers scheme and exemptions for organic farms and farms with less than 10 ha. Figure 1: Total agricultural area under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of total agricultural area, according to Eurostat FSS data for Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 13

14 Figure 2 shows the number of farmers subject to at least one greening obligation as a proportion of the number of farmers who have applied for direct payments. The overall proportion at EU level is 36 %. The proportion varies considerably between Member States: in over half of the Member States, mostly Nordic countries, the proportion is above the EU average, while in other Member States the proportion of farmers subject to greening is lower; in some cases including Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Romania, even less than 15 %. If this proportion is calculated using Eurostat FSS data for 2013 as a reference (instead of direct payments beneficiaries), at EU level 24 % of all holdings with utilised agricultural areas are subject to at least one greening obligation. Figure 2: Number of farmers under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of the number of farmers applying for direct payments 5 The data are affected by the exemptions awarded to farmers operating under the small farmers scheme, farms with less than 10 ha of arable land and organic farms, and by the presence of permanent crop areas in some Member States. Where these exemptions are applied, they lead to a large decrease in the number of farmers for only a slight decrease in the total agricultural area, mainly due to the small size of the farms involved. 5 Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 14

15 The maps in Figure 3 show the proportion of the total agricultural area and the proportion of total farmers under at least one greening obligation, according to the Eurostat FSS data for The maps highlight the difference between the Nordic countries and the southern European countries. Figure 3: Maps showing the agricultural area and number of farmers under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of Eurostat FSS data for Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 15

16 One factor that needs to be taken into account when analysing the general implementation of greening is the presence of permanent crops in the Member States. Permanent crops are entitled to the greening payment as part of the agricultural area of the farm, but there are no specific greening obligations to be respected on land used for this purpose. The figures for the proportion of farmers under at least one greening obligation were calculated excluding specialised farms with only permanent crops but including the total agricultural area of mixed farms with arable land or permanent grassland and permanent crops. The area subject to greening obligations has also been calculated using the sum of arable land and permanent grassland, so as to measure more accurately where land use is actually affected by greening: the European average then increases to 75 %, compared to 72 % if calculated using the total agricultural area. At EU level, land used for permanent crops represents 6 % of the total agricultural area. Only six Member States, all southern European, have a percentage of agricultural land used for permanent crops higher than this average (Cyprus 25 %, Greece and Portugal 19 %, Italy and Spain 17 %, and Malta 12 %). Figure 4 has been produced using the same methodology as was applied in Figure 1, but limiting the areas involved in the calculation to arable land and permanent grassland. The Member States shown in red are the six with a percentage of permanent crops above the European average. 16

17 Figure 4: Area of arable land and permanent grassland under at least one greening obligation as a proportion of total agricultural area, according to Eurostat FSS data for Considering only arable land and permanent grassland (Figure 4) rather than the whole agricultural area (Figure 2), the proportion of land subject to greening increases in Cyprus (by 20 %), Spain (by 9 %) and Greece (by 8 %), while for the other Member States, including the other countries which have a significant area of permanent crops (Italy, Malta and Portugal) the difference is less than 4 %. The variation in the implementation of greening across the Member States is closely linked to the number of exempted farms. Member States can choose whether to implement a small farmers scheme (SFS), which allows them to grant exemptions from greening obligations, as stated in Article 61(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. It should also be noted that the whole agricultural area of a farm operating under the small farmers scheme is exempted: these farms are therefore not included in the number of farmers under at least one greening obligation. 15 Member States are using a small farmers scheme: Table 3 shows the number of farmers under the small farmers scheme as a proportion of the number of beneficiaries of direct payments for the year 2014 and as a proportion of the total agricultural area according to the Eurostat FSS data for When considering only the 15 Member States that implement a small farmers scheme, 48 % of the total number of beneficiaries are covered by the scheme, representing 7 % of the agricultural area. If all Member States are included, the proportion of farmers benefiting from the scheme falls to 41 % of farmers and 4 % of the agricultural area. 7 Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 17

18 In Malta and Romania, more than 70 % of beneficiaries of direct payments are covered by the small farmers scheme, while for total agricultural areas in Malta, the proportion is 55 % and in Romania 16 %. In Portugal, Poland, Italy and Greece, between 40 % and 60 % of farmers and around % of total agricultural area is covered by the scheme. In the other Member States that use the small farmers scheme, the proportion of farmers covered by the scheme is significant (between 10 % and 40 %) but the area is much smaller (less than 8 % in Austria, 4 % in Croatia and less than 3 % in the other Member States). The average size of farmers covered by the small farmers scheme is 2.6 ha across the EU. The average size is highest in Austria, at 7.3 ha, followed by Estonia at 5.5 ha, while in the other Member States it is normally less than 3 ha. 18

19 Table 3: Farmers under the small farmers scheme as a proportion of the number of farmers benefiting from direct payments in 2014, and of the total agricultural area (TAA) according to the Eurostat FSS data for 2013 No of farmers receiving direct payments TAA from Eurostat FSS 2013 (ha) No of farmers Small farmers scheme TAA (ha) Average size of farm (ha) Small farmers scheme/total No of farmers TAA (ha) Bulgaria % 0.4 % Germany % 0.5 % Estonia % 1.1 % Greece % 11.0 % Spain % 3.9 % Croatia % 1.8 % Italy % 10.3 % Latvia % 2.2 % Hungary % 2.4 % Malta % 54.5 % Austria % 8.3 % Poland % 15.4 % Portugal % 6.0 % Romania % 16.4 % Slovenia % 0.9 % TOTAL EU (Member States with SFS) TOTAL EU (All Member States) % 7.4 % % 4 % The map in Figure 5 highlights how Member States implementation of the small farmers scheme varies across their regions. 19

20 Figure 5: Total agricultural area under the small farmers scheme as a proportion of the total agricultural area according to Eurostat FSS data for Article 43(11) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 specifies that organic farms are entitled ipso facto to the green direct payments. In practical terms, an organic farm is therefore considered green by definition, as it is already following practices that benefit the environment and does not therefore have to comply with the specific greening requirements, but does receive the payment. Conceptually, this is different from the exemption made for the small farmers scheme, where the farm is not required to comply with any environmental requirements. The proportion of organic farmers varies significantly across the Member States. Overall, organic farmers represent 1 % of the total number of farmers in the EU receiving direct payments. Compared to the data on agricultural area from the Eurostat FSS for 2013, organic farms account for 4 % of the total agricultural area, 3 % of arable land and 7 % of permanent grassland area. In six Member States (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Austria and Finland), organic farms account for over 10 % of the total agricultural area. The percentage of organic farms total agricultural area occupied by permanent grassland is higher than for other farms in all Member States except Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Romania and Sweden. The proportion is very high for some countries, e.g. the Czech 8 Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for the other Member States, data are taken from the most recent notifications available. Spain reported a zero-value as no data are available at NUTS level 3. 20

21 Republic (73 %), Austria (40 %), Latvia (33 %) and Estonia (28 %). The high proportion of permanent grassland on organic farms reflects the typical structure of European organic farms 9. Permanent grassland represents around 46 % of total organic agricultural areas in Europe, compared to around 30 % of total agricultural areas. Figure 6: The number of organic farms as a proportion of the number of farmers benefiting from direct payments, total agricultural area and permanent grassland, as a proportion of the Eurostat FSS data for Source: Eurostat data 2014 (table: Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops org_cropar). 10 Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. Malta reported no organic farms on its territory. 21

22 3.2. Crop diversification Figure 7 shows the arable land subject to crop diversification as a proportion of total arable land, as recorded in Eurostat data. At EU level, areas subject to crop diversification account for 75 % of total arable land. This is slightly higher than the proportion of farms under at least one greening obligation (73 %). In Hungary and the Czech Republic, the proportion of arable land subject to crop diversification is close to 98 %, while in a further nine Member States, it is between 80 % and 90 %. Member States which have a low percentage of crop diversification are those where greater use is made of exemptions (e.g. Malta and Portugal) or where there is a high percentage of permanent grassland (e.g. Ireland and Austria). Figure 7: Area of arable land subject to the crop diversification obligation as a proportion of the total arable area according to Eurostat FSS data for 2013, by Member State 11 Figure 8 considers only arable land on farms subject to crop diversification, and shows the proportion of this land that is subject to the two-crop and the three-crop requirements respectively. At EU level, 25 % of total arable land is not subject to crop diversification, 13 % is subject to the two-crop requirement applicable to arable land of between 10 ha and 30 ha (pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 44(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013), and 62 % is subject to the three-crop requirement applicable to arable land of over 30 ha (pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 44(1)). The relative proportion of land subject to the three-crop requirement (above 30 ha) rather than the two-crop requirement is generally higher in the Member States that have the lowest proportion of farms not covered by the crop diversification requirement (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Slovakia and Hungary). There is a higher relative proportion of land subject to the two-crop requirement in Member States where a higher percentage of farms are not subject to crop diversification, 11 Data missing for France and UK Scotland; for other MS data are updated with last available notifications. 22

23 with the exception of Finland, where over 50 % of arable land is subject to the two-crop requirement. The effect of the crop diversification obligation, the application of which is determined by the number of hectares, is therefore generally linked to the structure of agriculture across the Member States: Member States which have, on average, the largest farms will have fewer farms that are exempted and a higher proportion of land will therefore be subject to the threecrop requirement. Figure 8: Arable land subject to the two-crop and three-crop requirements as a proportion of arable land under the crop diversification obligation 12 Figure 9 analyses the type of exemptions that farms benefit from. There are farms with under 10 ha of arable land, which are exempt for this reason, in almost all Member States. At EU level, 56 % of exemptions are awarded on these grounds, while in some Member States, such as Malta, Croatia and Romania, all farms benefiting from an exemption have been exempted for this reason. In other Member States, such as Estonia, the UK, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal, a larger proportion of exemptions are awarded on the grounds of the presence of grassland and fallow land. 12 Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 23

24 Figure 9: Arable land on farms exempted from the crop diversification obligation, by type of exemption 13 The map in Figure 10 shows the proportion of arable land under crop diversification across the NUTS level 3 regions. The areas where a higher proportion of land is subject to the requirement are spread across all Member States, including those where the average proportion at national level is quite low, as is the case for Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Figure 10: Arable land under crop diversification as a proportion of total arable land in the region (Eurostat FSS data for 2013) Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 14 Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 24

25 Annex 4 to the CSWD provides further information on the impact of this obligation and on the precise area which farmers are required to diversify. It should be noted that the areas subject to the obligation, as reported in this chapter, are determined by the area of farms which have to respect the obligation, on the grounds of their arable land size. It could, however, be the case that the number of crops already present in the farm is sufficient to comply with the obligation Permanent grassland Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland The obligation relating to environmentally sensitive permanent grassland (ESPG) depends on the designation by Member States inside or outside Natura Member States can decide to designate under the greening requirements all or a part of grassland located in Natura 2000 areas, as well as other further sensitive grassland. Within the designated areas, farmers concerned declare their grassland on a part of this land, while the remaining part may not be covered by the direct payments scheme (e.g. farms that choose not to benefit from the direct payments system) or can be exempted, such as those that come under the small farmers scheme. Expressing the ESPG area as a ratio of permanent grassland gives an impression of the extent of protection for these valuable habitats relative to the total grassland area in a Member State. The proportion of ESPG at EU level is 16 %, with significant variability being seen between the Member States. 25

26 Hungary, the Czech Republic and Greece have the highest percentages of ESPG, due to the fact that close to or 100 % of the designated areas are in Natura In the case of the Czech Republic, it is important to note that the figure is for ESPG declared both in and outside Natura 2000 (almost ha in total). In some cases, even where a high proportion of permanent grassland areas are designated relative to the area of permanent grassland in Natura 2000, the declared areas still constitute only a small proportion of the total permanent grassland (inside and outside Natura 2000), as is the case in Sweden (5 %). 26

27 Figure 11: Declared ESPG (in and outside Natura 2000) as a proportion of permanent grassland according to the permanent grassland ratio 15 Figure 12 shows the proportion of permanent grassland areas in Natura 2000 areas designated (sum of green and blue parts of the bars) or declared (green parts of the bars) as ESPG in the different Member States (see the first paragraph of this chapter for an explanation of designated and declared areas). The proportion is as high as 100 % where all areas of permanent grassland present in Natura 2000 are designated and declared. 15 Data for the ESPG are missing for France, Cyprus, Ireland and England and Scotland (UK); Malta does not have any permanent grassland; for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 27

28 At EU level, 75 % of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 is designated as ESPG. 10 Member States (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden) have designated more than 90 % of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 as ESPG. A small number of Member States (Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Austria and Portugal) designated less than 10 % of total permanent grassland in Natura 2000 as ESPG. A total of 40 % of the permanent grassland in Natura 2000 across the EU has been declared as ESPG. Whether designated ESPG areas are declared as such depends on the location of the farms benefiting from direct payments, in respect to Natura 2000 sites, and also on the way the Member States managed the designation process. In Greece, Romania, Finland and Sweden, all or most of the designated areas have also been declared by farmers, while in Member States such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania and the UK, less than 50 % of the designated areas have been declared. The figures for the ESPG given in the graphs and maps presented here are still subject to confirmation from the Member States. Figure 12: The proportion of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 designated and/or declared as ESPG, by Member State Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); data for the declared ESPG area are missing for Cyprus, Ireland and England (UK); Malta does not have any permanent grassland; for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 28

29 Five countries also decided to designate areas outside Natura 2000 as ESPG (Table 4). The areas designated ranged from over ha in the Czech Republic, to ha in Luxembourg and ha in Flanders (Belgium). Table 4: Areas designated as ESPG outside Natura 2000 Designated ESPG area (ha) No of farmers declared ESPG declared (ha) ESPG declared/designated (%) Flanders (BE) / / / Czech Republic % Latvia % Luxembourg % Wales (UK) % TOTAL EU % 17 Flanders (Belgium) designated areas outside Natura 2000 for the first time in 2015; data on the implementation are not yet available. 29

30 Permanent grassland ratio The data presented in this chapter should be interpreted in the light of the principles on the maintenance of permanent grassland. Member States monitor changes in the permanent grassland area by comparing reference and annual ratios. A summary of the system used for monitoring is given in section 2.2 of this Annex. The Member States were required to notify the Commission of the figure set as the reference ratio and the first annual ratio for 2015 by 15 December Table 5 shows this data at the geographical level chosen by the Member State, and Figure 13 shows the same data aggregated at Member State level). No Member State reported needing to issue a reconversion obligation, as they would be required to do if the ratio had fallen by more than 5 % relative to the reference value. The figures from some Member States (Estonia, Cyprus and the UK (England)) do, however, show the area of permanent grassland to have fallen by this amount. Figures are missing for some Member States, while for others communications are still ongoing. At EU level, permanent grassland accounts for 29 % of total agricultural land. The Member States/regions with the highest proportion of permanent grassland in their total agricultural area are Ireland and the UK regions Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which all recorded figures of around 90 %. Luxembourg and Slovenia have a proportion of permanent grassland of between 50 % and 60 %, and various other Member States and some of the German regions have more than 40 %. The Member States with the smallest areas of permanent grassland as a proportion of total agricultural area are Cyprus (2 %), Finland (6 %) and Denmark (8.5 %). Malta does not have any permanent grassland. Figure 13: Areas of permanent grassland as a proportion of total agricultural area, by Member State (based on the data from the notification of the permanent grassland ratio) Data missing for France and Scotland (UK); Malta does not have any permanent grassland, as defined under the ratio system; for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 30

31 31

32 Table 5: Reference ratio, annual ratio for 2015 and the percentage change between the two, at Member State and regional level (permanent grassland ratio notification data) 19 Member State Region Percentage change from reference ratio to 2015 ratio 2015 annual ratio Reference ratio Belgium Flanders 0.98 % % % Wallonia 0.00 % % % Bulgaria % % % Czech Republic % % % Denmark 0.00 % 8.50 % 8.50 % Germany Baden-Württemberg 0.53 % % % Bavaria % % % Brandenburg % % % Hessen % % % Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 0.35 % % % Lower Saxony % % % North Rhine-Westphalia % % % Rhineland-Palatinate % % % Saarland % % % Saxony 0.01 % % % Saxony-Anhalt 1.23 % % % Schleswig-Holstein 0.29 % % % Thuringia % % % Estonia % % % Ireland % % % Greece % % % Spain % % % France N/A N/A N/A Croatia % % % Italy N/A N/A N/A Cyprus % 1.92 % 2.00 % Latvia % % % Lithuania % % % Luxembourg 0.66 % % % Hungary 0.14 % % % 19 Malta does not have any permanent grassland, as defined under the ratio system. Data are not yet available for France, Italy and Scotland (UK). 32

33 Member State Region Percentage change from reference ratio to 2015 ratio 2015 annual ratio Reference ratio Netherlands 0.06 % % % Malta 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Austria % % % Poland % % % Portugal 0.25 % % % Romania % % % Slovenia 1.23 % % % Slovakia 0.00 % % % Finland % 6.38 % 6.38 % Sweden 6.51 % % % United Kingdom England % % % Northern Ireland 1.38 % % % Scotland N/A N/A N/A Wales 6.82 % % % TOTAL EU % % % The map in Figure 14 provide a breakdown at the geographical level used by Member States to check the ratio for year 2015, based on the figures reported in Table 5 and compared to the reference ratio for the period Figure 14: Proportion of permanent grassland in 2015 (permanent grassland/total agricultural area) Data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); Malta does not have any permanent grassland, as defined under the ratio system; for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 33

34 During both periods and , the aim of the obligation has been to ensure stability in the maintenance of permanent grassland. In the legal framework has changed, including the definition of permanent grassland and the methodology for calculating the ratio (e.g. the exclusion, in the later period, of organic farms and farms under the small farmers scheme). In order to assess how permanent grassland areas had changed over the period Figure 15 compares the annual ratio for 2014 with the correspondent reference ratio (which was calculated based on 2005 data). Member States where the annual ratio had increased relative to the reference ratio are marked in green (variation higher than 0 %); those where the ratio had fallen by between 0 % and 5 % are marked in yellow; and those where it had fallen by between 5 % and 10 % are marked in pink. It should be noted that in the previous period, the percentage change above which a reconversion obligation was triggered was 10 % (instead of 5 %, as is the case in the current period). If the change was a fall of between 5 % and 10 %, the Member State was required to set up a prior authorisation system. The Member States or regions where permanent grassland areas were decreasing by up to 10 % were Greece, Bulgaria, Finland, Flanders (Belgium) and some German regions. A similar map will be produced for 2015 when the assessment of the annual ratios has been completed. 34

35 Figure 15: Change shown by the 2014 annual ratio for permanent grassland relative to the reference ratio for the period

36 3.4. Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) Figure 16 shows the proportion of total arable land (according to Eurostat data) that belongs to farms subject to the EFA obligation. The overall percentage at EU level is 68 % of the total arable land, compared to the 73 % belonging to farms subject to at least one greening obligation. The proportion of arable land belonging to farms subject to the EFA obligation is around 90 % in Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary and Slovakia. A number of other Member States recorded values between 40 % and 80 %. The Member States that have a lower percentage of arable land on farms subject to the EFA obligation are those where more farms benefit from exemptions (e.g. Malta and Greece), where there is a high percentage of permanent grassland (e.g. Ireland and Austria) or where the forest exemption is applied (e.g. Finland). Figure 16: Total area of arable land that belongs to farms subject to EFA obligations as a proportion of the total arable area according to Eurostat FSS data for 2013, by Member State data are missing for France, Luxembourg and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 36

37 Figure 17 analyses the different types of exemption from the EFA that farms may qualify for. These are: exemptions for farms with less than 15 ha of arable land or where more than 75 % of the agricultural area is occupied by grassland or leguminous crops (shown together as Other EFA exemptions on the graph), and exemptions allowed in Member States where above 50 % of the total land surface area is covered by forest, awarded pursuant to Article 46(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (shown on the graph as Forest exemption ). Four of the five Member States eligible for the forest exemption (Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Latvia) choose to apply it. Extensive use is made of the forest exemption in Estonia and Finland, where it accounts for almost 100 % of the exempted arable land in the country, while in Latvia and Sweden it accounts, respectively, for 36 % and 45 % of the total exempted land. The most common type of exemption in most Member States (with the exception of those where the forest exemption applies) is for farms of under 15 ha. This type of exemption accounts for almost 70 % of the total area of land exempted across all Member States, and for close to 100 % in Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria and Romania. The other types of exemption are more common in Portugal, Luxembourg, Italy and Slovenia. Figure 17: Area of arable land on farms exempted from the EFA obligation, by type of exemption data are missing for France and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 37

38 Figure 18 shows the proportion of arable land on which the EFA obligation is being implemented. This can be calculated either before or after applying the weighting factors set out in Annex 2 to Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. The weighting factors are applied to the physical area actually occupied by EFA (corresponding to the calculation before weighting factor), and reflect the ecological value of the different EFA types and the duration of their effects. It is important to note that the 5 % minimum (EFA area/arable land area) that farmers are required to achieve is calculated after the application of weighting factors: the actual ratio for the EU as a whole is 9 %, almost double the percentage that farmers are legally required to observe under the EFA requirement. The proportion of arable land on which the EFA is applied is particularly high in Malta (21 %), Spain (16 %), Croatia and Cyprus (14 %), Lithuania and Ireland (12 %), Latvia and the UK (10 %), while the Member States where the EFA area is only just above the regulatory 5 % are Denmark, Germany, Austria, Slovenia and Finland. The ratio of the EFA area to total arable land, as calculated before weighting factors are applied, is 14 % in the EU as a whole, and is particularly high in the Netherlands and Malta (26 %), Belgium (23 %) and Croatia (20 %). Figure 18: Percentage of arable land under EFA before and after applying weighting factors data are missing for France, Luxembourg and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 38

39 The map in Figure 19 gives an overview of the implementation of EFA at regional level. Regions where there is no EFA area are mainly those benefiting from the forest exemption, particularly in Finland. The maps' classes (based on the proportion of EFA area on arable land) are built in order to set the upper bound for the first non-zero class at 5 %, the same percentage of the legal requirement. This helps to highlight the regions where the EFA is being implemented on a larger proportion of land, above the minimum set as the regulatory limit. There are a number of regions, spread across a range of countries, where the EFA area is particularly significant. Figure 19: Areas under EFA (after applying weighting factors) as a proportion of the arable land belonging to farms subject to the EFA obligation data are missing for France, Luxembourg and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 39

40 Figure 20 compares the relative size of the different types of EFA areas (at EU level) before and after applying the weighting factors, in order to show the influence of the weighting factors on the relative importance of the different uses. The sum of the three main types of EFA is 94 % before weighting factors are applied (equivalent to physical areas on the ground), decreasing to 92 % after applying the weighting factors. The largest reduction caused by applying the weighting factors is for catch crops, where a 0.3 factor is applied. The proportion of the EFA area in this category falls from 28 % (before applying the weighting factors) to 15 % (after), while the percentage of the EFA area used for nitrogen-fixing crops (with a weighting factor of 0.7) decreases from 45.4 % (before applying the weighting factor) to 39.4 % (after). The proportion of land lying fallow (for which the weighting factor is 1), increases from 21.2 % (before) to 38 % (after). The proportion of EFA for landscape features remained fairly stable, increasing from 4.3 % to 4.8 % Ecological focus areas linked to a productive activity nitrogen-fixing crops and catch crops account for 73.1 % of the total EFA area before the application of weighting factors. The percentage of the EFA area for buffer strips remained stable at 1.6 %. Figure 20: Breakdown of EFA areas by main EFA type, at EU level, before and after the application of weighting factors 25 Before applying weighting factors After applying weighting factors data are missing for France, Luxembourg and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 40

41 Figure 21 shows the proportion of the EFA area that comes under each of the main types of EFA, after the application of the weighting factors. The three main types of EFA are open to farmers in almost all Member States (land lying fallow in 26 Member States, nitrogen-fixing crops in 27, and catch crops in 20), but the relative proportions of land allocated to each varies considerably between Member States. The total absolute area of EFA is 5.6 million ha across the EU. Spain is the country where the largest area of EFA is found (1.5 million ha, 27 % of the total). Within Spain, the largest single type of EFA is land lying fallow, which accounts for almost 1 million ha (17 % of the total EFA area across the EU), followed by nitrogenfixing crops, which account for 0.5 million ha (9 % of the total). Germany has the second largest EFA area in absolute terms, at 0.7 million ha (12 % of the total EFA area in the EU), with catch crops and land lying fallow being the two most significant types of EFA. Figure 21: Breakdown of the main types of EFA area, after applying the weighting factors 26 Figure 22 gives a breakdown, by Member State, of the different types of landscape features. The type of landscape feature most often chosen by farmers are hedges and wooded strips, which account for 67 % of the EFA area for landscape features at EU level and are open to farmers in 15 Member States as a type of EFA. The relative area accounted for by hedges and wooded strips is highest in the UK (where they are the only type of landscape feature that can be chosen), Germany and Ireland. It should be noted that hedges in the UK, Germany and Ireland accounted for, respectively, 40 %, 14 % and 11 % of the total area of landscape features across the EU. Field margins represented 15 % of the total (and are used in 17 Member States) data are missing for France, Luxembourg and Scotland (UK); for other Member States, the data are taken from the most recent notifications available. 41

42 They are the main type of EFA landscape feature in five Member States (the Czech Republic, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden), where they accounted for close to 100 % of the total area of landscape features. Figure 22: Breakdown of EFA landscape features areas, after applying the weighting factors 27 In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, Member States can decide to apply the EFA obligation at regional or collective level, in order to concentrate the EFA areas at territorial level. In 2014, only two Member States (the Netherlands and Poland) decided to implement the obligation at collective level and none chose to use regional implementation. The data for farms that implemented the collective approach in the two Member States allowing this are shown in Table 6. There were a total of 45 holdings involved in collective implementation, with between them ha of arable land and 142 ha of EFA (after applying the weighting factors). These areas were mostly concentrated in Poland (88 % of the arable land and 61 % of the EFA). The farms using collective implementation represented less than 1 % of the total number of farms under the EFA obligation in the two Member States (excluding exempted farms). Table 6: Member States implementing collective EFA Member State No farmers of Arable land area (ha) EFA area before applying weighting factors (ha) EFA area after applying weighting factors (ha) 27 The data are only for Member States where landscape features are recognised as a type of EFA. 42